1146:: There have been some misunderstandings within this AFD, and some unusual deletion/editing of others' comments, I guess all in good faith though, involving perhaps some English-not-being-first-language issue and some unfamiliarity with AFD practices. Although I would prefer that no one should comment after every other persons' statements, I am okay with this stuff being discussed elsewhere, and I think it has not too seriously undermined things here. About the AFD subject:
31:
608:(admittedly most of them hotel reviews). All that counts is whether it's held to be notable or not. And that's up to us here at AfD. If you don't think it's notable that's of course your prerogative, but please don't attempt to dismiss and sneer at another editor's opinion because you don't agree with it. That's completely against the spirit of Knowledge. --
895:. The waxing and waning of luxury hotels is, in fact, of interest to many, and is covered in news locally and sometimes more widely, in addition to offline historic stuff about the place before it was a hotel. This one is more historic and arguably notable than many other luxury hotel articles I've seen or contributed to. --
1089:
The Ellis source is less than a page and doesn't describe the building much. Independent article is just passing coverage, it's literally less than a sentence. It's hard to tell what exacty the
Scarborough article grants notability to, as it's mostly just an interview with the owners, only mentioning
1059:
Well, as the deletion nomination noted, there is significant coverage in the Ellis source, not much used in developing the article yet. And I added a bit more from The
Independent article, and a little from this recent Scarborough local article (not yet recognized here, i guess searching so far has
823:
Right, sure it may not be "in the news"; but it is substantial and there surely exists off-line resources and perhaps on-line resources not found, under different naming say. It does suffice to establish well enough that sources do exist or must exist. To the badgerers, please spare me badgering
545:
I'm mystified as to the editors who don't seem to think that opinion matters at AfD. If all that mattered were strict "rules" (once again, note that
Knowledge doesn't have any rules) then we wouldn't have AfD discussions at all, as I've pointed out many times. I'm not aware I claimed my opinion was
631:
second one is primary, the third one is two sentences, not significant, and potentially primary as well. No other reliable sources have been identified yet. There are a few results in a newspapers.com search, but I'm not sure how significant they are. And yes, source review can be subjective, but
630:
a requirement for determining whether something is notable, and as someone who is an administrator, you should absolutely know better. If you think the three sources in the article are sufficient for inclusion, fine, have that opinion. It's easily argued against, though. You should know that. The
819:
is helpful in evaluating notability. Badgering about that is not helpful, and if the badgerers here want to badger me too, well, please, don't. Some of us, probably not including the badgerers, have some degree of informed intelligence and relevant knowledge to interpret a photo like that. It
569:
If you can't back up your opinion with reliable sources, then your opinion's not worth anything. I'm astounded you keep digging yourself into a further hole by saying that whether something should be deleted or kept is based on "common sense." It's based on whether the subject is notable, which
550:
my opinion. Which I am perfectly entitled to express in AfD discussions. Please try not to misrepresent arguments. I've read these bizarre insinuations that admins aren't allowed to express an opinion before. They were ludicrous then and they're still ludicrous now. What, are we only allowed to
607:
As have I. And in my experience common sense is usually a factor. Notability is entirely subjective, whether on
Knowledge or elsewhere. As I said, if this were not the case we wouldn't have AfDs at all. The article is reliably sourced. The building exists. A Google search produces many results
991:
Not relevant. Misread what I wrote. I directly said editors here are not idiots, how do you manage to twist that inside your head to say the opposite? It is obviously true that some editors in
Knowledge are way more informed than others, about interpretation of architecture.
966:
is insufficient. I searched extensively, including through
NewspaperARCHIVE.com and Newspapers.com, which combined have large numbers of articles from local, regional and national newspapers going back a long time (often well before 1881). Do you have any sources that I missed?
708:- Whatever notability the politician and his family has doesn't transfer over to the location in which they've lived. Having merely one reliable source isn't enough in terms of providing the detail that we need as well. The article as it stands doesn't appear worth keeping.
85:. The delete view appear to be based on a reasonable interpretation of policy and an absence of suitable sourcing. The keep votes are overall more assertion and/or non policy based arguments and therefore do not overcome the strength of the delete arguments.
1094:. My searches included newspapers.com and a British newspaper archive, all of the search pages brought up by Google and an alt search engine, and Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar - doesn't really feel imperfect as I did try to save this thing.
922:
search on that property only brought a couple of advertisements from the 1930s. If this is more arguably notable than many other hotels you've contributed to, it should be easy for you to source it adequately, which is ultimately the major test of AfD.
574:
common sense applies in very specific circumstances (such as early
Olympians from non-English speaking countries where nobody has done an archival RS search in the native language), but I've done probably four figures of AfDs now and that's
1194:
I don't have access myself to full regular tourist guide books which may provide substantial reviews. Brief mentions in TripAdvisor, Kayak, etc. don't really provide substantial material, but do, IMHO, still speak to
512:
Basing a keep vote for an undersourced building on Google Street View alone and then claiming that opinion is more important than any rules we have about sourcing is bad enough, I'm frankly extremely concerned an
234:
551:
regurgitate policies? Sorry, I have always applied common sense to AfD discussions. And to me, common sense dictates that we keep buildings such as this. To others it may not, but that's their opinion too. --
860:, seems comparable (built 1882) and a substantial house (see the photos), but clearly lesser, too. Compare to photos of the country house that is Wrea Head Hall, e.g. the view showing its size/scale in
1157:
322:
I'd like to see sources that discuss it before they turned it into a hotel, as a web search brings up local news on the hotel and a bunch of travel listings. It's not necessarily non-notable.
1229:
isn't supposed to be signed, meaning the "unsigned comment" notice was very likely added by mistake, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the template being used, which is why I removed it. --
888:
962:
I won't continue the discussion whether looking at the article via Google Street View is a reasonable way of determining notability. However, I think that your assertion that
366:
1006:
I misintepreted the comment as meaning that those other than the "badgerers" are not idiots, as opposed to the "badgerers". Striking. The rest of the comment still stands.
390:
228:
187:
302:
282:
1170:
Tourist guide books can be quite great, reliable sources. I don't have access to the inside contents, but Alfred
Wainwright, apparently reputable author of
1027:
I'm going to formally vote !delete after the relists. Having reviewed the available sources and having looked for available sources, this doesn't quite pass
134:
119:
824:
about your take on the relevant policy/guidelines on this; I disagree with you, and I don't care to listen to your opinion; others here are not idiots.
429:
Just providing a view of the property. As an architectural historian, I think actually seeing a building is important in determining notability. --
40:
969:
Also, I request you withdraw your insinuations that other editors here do not possess "some degree informed intelligence" and are "idiots" (
194:
963:
828:
766:
782:(nom) In addition to my earlier search via NewspaperARCHIVE.com, I also searched via Newspapers.com, and couldn't find anything either. --
1108:
1045:
937:
653:
593:
531:
336:
570:
requires reliable sources. You don't get to have an opinion that reliable sources may or may not exist. They either do or they do not.
160:
155:
1334:
164:
835:, which rather puzzles me. Also, there's substantial stuff about this. I too am interested in the conscientious objectors angle.
1090:
the building briefly. I think this is about the building, but if we're reviewing this as a hotel business, it completely fails
147:
114:
107:
17:
626:
I'm not sneering at your opinion because I don't agree with it, I'm sneering at your opinion because "looking at a building"
249:
216:
1132:
713:
128:
124:
1272:(as nom) I don't think the new sources provide the SIGCOV required for GNG, so I still believe it should be deleted.
861:
743:
725:- Is there more info about its time as a convalescent place for objectors? If so, it would strengthen notability.
685:
1316:
831:
or eligible for listing, for its architecture and substance. There's mention/assertion above that this is not a
73:
50:
411:
I might be missing something, but that link sends me to Google Street View. How does that establish notability?
210:
761:
517:
would make an argument like this - and I'm someone who would like to see this article kept if at all possible.
1100:
1037:
929:
645:
585:
523:
374:
328:
1299:
1281:
1264:
1238:
1209:
1136:
1113:
1084:
1050:
1015:
1001:
984:
942:
904:
873:
851:
808:
791:
772:
734:
717:
698:
658:
617:
598:
560:
536:
501:
478:
460:
438:
420:
402:
378:
355:
341:
314:
294:
274:
206:
89:
1128:
709:
151:
1312:
1223:
69:
1290:
256:
857:
613:
556:
474:
434:
398:
1178:
and several other books in the Google books search link which discuss and/or picture Wrea Head Hall.
143:
95:
756:
753:
483:
448:
242:
827:
Built in 1881, the building is a substantial work that, in the U.S. would surely be listed on the
389:. Although not a listed building, I would say it is a significant enough building for an article.
1095:
1032:
924:
879:
730:
640:
580:
518:
485:
Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue,
370:
323:
820:
might well be good to have a self-ban of those from looking at photos or commenting about them.
1205:
1080:
997:
900:
869:
847:
804:
103:
62:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1311:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
265:
Tilney's book could pass as SIGCOV, but I cannot find any other independent reliable SIGCOV.
68:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1277:
1234:
1011:
980:
919:
787:
497:
469:
Doesn't have to be. Just by opinion. Knowledge is not bound by rules, only by consensus. --
456:
416:
351:
310:
290:
270:
222:
1260:
1189:, which I believe can be freely uploaded into Commons and used to illustrate this article.
1091:
892:
832:
816:
609:
552:
470:
430:
394:
1062:
346:
I tried finding sources, including via
NewspaperARCHIVE.com, but couldn't find any. --
1328:
1252:
1028:
970:
915:
726:
632:
1201:
1076:
993:
957:
896:
865:
843:
800:
695:
86:
181:
839:
1273:
1230:
1007:
976:
783:
493:
452:
412:
347:
306:
286:
266:
635:, the overriding notability guideline, is actually an objective guideline. You
1256:
918:
arguments, but that hotel was only notable because it fell into the sea - my
1186:
1182:
1181:
There are two
Creative Commons-licensed photos of Wrea Head Hall at
1251:. Old buildings need not be listed to be notable. This one passes
447:
I don't believe that way of determining notability is supported
1307:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
842:
is valid for use in developing the article. Enough already. --
25:
746:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
688:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1149:
This place is the subject, or a main locale, of a series of
1215:
The only editing of "others' comments" that happened was
1167:
this hall. To see, try Google books search linked above.
1031:. What the building looks like in a photo is irrelevant.
546:"more important" than anything. I simply stated that it
1216:
177:
173:
169:
882:, which collapsed into the sea! With same owners, per
241:
752:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
694:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
639:have reliable sources for something to be notable.
367:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
76:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1319:). No further edits should be made to this page.
365:Note: This discussion has been included in the
301:Note: This discussion has been included in the
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
840:https://wreaheadhall.co.uk/heritage-lifestyle/
487:as viewed through the lens of Knowledge policy
303:list of Geography-related deletion discussions
255:
8:
283:list of England-related deletion discussions
135:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
838:The place's own webpage about its history,
364:
300:
280:
1187:https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3661485
1183:https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4290455
43:. The result of the deletion review was
1065:. Scarborough Review. March 2019. p. 33
878:Also, interesting to compare to nearby
49:For an explanation of the process, see
1063:"Wrea Head is Ready to Face the World"
484:
7:
1255:. Good work in expanding/rescuing.
829:National Register of Historic Places
914:I don't typically like to address
24:
1156:books by Lynda Stacey, including
858:this is a nearby listed building
120:Introduction to deletion process
29:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
41:deletion review on 2020 May 8
815:The photo link provided by
110:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1351:
792:11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
773:22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
735:13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
718:11:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
699:10:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
659:17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
618:13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
599:23:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
561:11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
537:17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
502:13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
479:11:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
461:11:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
439:11:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
421:09:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
403:09:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
379:09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
356:19:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
342:18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
315:17:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
295:17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
275:17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
628:is not and has never been
51:Knowledge:Deletion review
1335:Pages at deletion review
1309:Please do not modify it.
1176:Wainwright Memorial Walk
65:Please do not modify it.
45:no consensus to overturn
1300:09:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1282:09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1265:08:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1239:22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1210:22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1137:07:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1114:08:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1085:06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1051:00:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1016:10:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
1002:00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
985:00:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
943:04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
905:01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
874:00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
852:00:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
809:04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
90:20:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1289:- meets requirements†
1154:adult mystery/romance
964:there must be sources
108:Articles for deletion
1172:Westmorland Heritage
492:(emphasis mine). --
1158:"House of Secrets"
880:Holbeck Hall Hotel
1241:
1129:GhostInTheMachine
775:
710:CoffeeWithMarkets
701:
381:
317:
297:
125:Guide to deletion
115:How to contribute
57:
56:
39:was subject to a
1342:
1297:
1228:
1222:
1214:
1111:
1103:
1074:
1072:
1070:
1060:been imperfect):
1048:
1040:
961:
940:
932:
769:
764:
759:
751:
749:
747:
693:
691:
689:
656:
648:
596:
588:
534:
526:
339:
331:
260:
259:
245:
197:
185:
167:
105:
67:
33:
32:
26:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1317:deletion review
1291:
1226:
1220:
1162:appears to mean
1107:
1099:
1068:
1066:
1061:
1044:
1036:
955:
936:
928:
893:The Independent
833:listed building
817:User:Necrothesp
776:
767:
762:
757:
742:
740:
702:
684:
682:
652:
644:
592:
584:
579:been the case.
530:
522:
335:
327:
202:
193:
158:
142:
139:
102:
99:
81:The result was
74:deletion review
63:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1348:
1346:
1338:
1337:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1303:
1302:
1284:
1267:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1179:
1168:
1140:
1139:
1127:and expand --
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1054:
1053:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
989:
988:
987:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
886:
885:
884:
883:
876:
836:
825:
821:
812:
811:
794:
750:
739:
738:
737:
720:
692:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
621:
620:
602:
601:
564:
563:
540:
539:
507:
506:
505:
504:
464:
463:
442:
441:
424:
423:
406:
405:
383:
382:
361:
360:
359:
358:
319:
318:
298:
263:
262:
199:
144:Wrea Head Hall
138:
137:
132:
122:
117:
100:
98:
96:Wrea Head Hall
93:
79:
78:
58:
55:
54:
48:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1347:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1330:
1320:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1294:Encyclopædius
1288:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1225:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1104:
1102:
1097:
1096:SportingFlyer
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1064:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1041:
1039:
1034:
1033:SportingFlyer
1030:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
972:
965:
959:
954:
953:
952:
951:
944:
941:
939:
933:
931:
926:
925:SportingFlyer
921:
917:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
881:
877:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
777:
774:
770:
765:
760:
755:
748:
745:
736:
732:
728:
724:
721:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
703:
700:
697:
690:
687:
660:
657:
655:
649:
647:
642:
641:SportingFlyer
638:
634:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
615:
611:
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
597:
595:
589:
587:
582:
581:SportingFlyer
578:
573:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
533:
527:
525:
520:
519:SportingFlyer
516:
515:administrator
511:
510:
509:
508:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
488:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:Coolabahapple
368:
363:
362:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
340:
338:
332:
330:
325:
324:SportingFlyer
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
258:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
208:
205:
204:Find sources:
200:
196:
192:
189:
183:
179:
175:
171:
166:
162:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
140:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
121:
118:
116:
113:
112:
111:
109:
104:
97:
94:
92:
91:
88:
84:
77:
75:
71:
66:
60:
59:
52:
46:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1308:
1306:
1293:
1292:
1286:
1269:
1248:
1224:page creator
1175:
1171:
1164:
1161:
1153:
1150:
1143:
1124:
1106:
1098:
1067:. Retrieved
1043:
1035:
1024:
968:
935:
927:
889:this article
887:
862:its brochure
796:
779:
741:
722:
705:
683:
651:
643:
636:
627:
591:
583:
576:
571:
547:
529:
521:
514:
486:
386:
334:
326:
264:
252:
246:
238:
231:
225:
219:
213:
203:
190:
101:
82:
80:
64:
61:
44:
36:
1195:notability.
1174:(2004) and
856:By the way
229:free images
1151:children's
610:Necrothesp
553:Necrothesp
471:Necrothesp
431:Necrothesp
395:Necrothesp
1313:talk page
920:WP:BEFORE
449:by policy
391:View here
70:talk page
1329:Category
1315:or in a
1165:is about
1092:WP:NCORP
744:Relisted
727:Caro7200
686:Relisted
188:View log
129:glossary
72:or in a
1270:Comment
1202:Doncram
1144:Comment
1077:Doncram
994:Doncram
958:Doncram
897:Doncram
866:Doncram
844:Doncram
801:Doncram
780:Comment
754:King of
723:Comment
696:Spartaz
235:WP refs
223:scholar
161:protect
156:history
106:New to
87:Spartaz
1274:MrClog
1253:WP:GNG
1231:MrClog
1160:which
1069:May 3,
1029:WP:GNG
1025:Delete
1008:MrClog
977:MrClog
971:WP:NPA
916:WP:OSE
784:MrClog
706:Delete
633:WP:GNG
494:MrClog
453:MrClog
413:MrClog
348:MrClog
307:MrClog
287:MrClog
267:MrClog
207:Google
165:delete
83:delete
1257:Cbl62
799:. --
577:never
572:Maybe
393:. --
250:JSTOR
211:books
195:Stats
182:views
174:watch
170:links
16:<
1287:Keep
1278:talk
1261:talk
1249:Keep
1235:talk
1217:this
1206:talk
1185:and
1133:talk
1125:Keep
1081:talk
1075:. --
1071:2020
1012:talk
998:talk
981:talk
901:talk
870:talk
864:. --
848:talk
805:talk
797:Keep
788:talk
731:talk
714:talk
637:must
614:talk
557:talk
498:talk
475:talk
457:talk
451:. --
435:talk
417:talk
399:talk
387:Keep
375:talk
352:talk
311:talk
291:talk
271:talk
243:FENS
217:news
178:logs
152:talk
148:edit
891:in
548:was
257:TWL
186:– (
1331::
1280:)
1263:)
1237:)
1227:}}
1221:{{
1219:.
1208:)
1200:--
1135:)
1083:)
1014:)
1000:)
992:--
983:)
975:--
973:).
903:)
872:)
850:)
807:)
790:)
771:♠
733:)
716:)
616:)
559:)
500:)
477:)
459:)
437:)
419:)
401:)
377:)
369:.
354:)
313:)
305:.
293:)
285:.
273:)
237:)
180:|
176:|
172:|
168:|
163:|
159:|
154:|
150:|
1276:(
1259:(
1233:(
1204:(
1131:(
1109:C
1105:·
1101:T
1079:(
1073:.
1046:C
1042:·
1038:T
1010:(
996:(
979:(
960::
956:@
938:C
934:·
930:T
899:(
868:(
846:(
803:(
786:(
768:♣
763:♦
758:♥
729:(
712:(
654:C
650:·
646:T
612:(
594:C
590:·
586:T
555:(
532:C
528:·
524:T
496:(
489:.
473:(
455:(
433:(
415:(
397:(
373:(
350:(
337:C
333:·
329:T
309:(
289:(
269:(
261:)
253:·
247:·
239:·
232:·
226:·
220:·
214:·
209:(
201:(
198:)
191:·
184:)
146:(
131:)
127:(
53:.
47:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.